Vardhan's comments

I think immigration policy will eventually be nonexistent, but before then many things need to happen. The developing nations need to achieve a certain quality of living across the board so that the people there don't all just decide to get up, and leave.

Economies need to become less decentralized, and more global in their scope. Which arguable is very much a reality today, but I think this is simply the beginning.

And there's a whole host of other developments that need to happen, but I believe eventually will happen in the coming decades. We'll see a more homogenous world, yet also a more diverse one.

Apple played an important role in this, but that's irrelevant. The fact that this is still going on holds equal wait on all the Silicon Valley giants. I mean who cares if Apple played a role in this. Oh right... We hate Apple...

The fact of the matter is these are companies that are self interested, it just so happens that a lot of their technologies agree with what many people believe. Decentralization of power, power to the people, internet, technology, rebellion against old ways, etc. etc. But we can never forget that these companies are exactly what was in the past, just in a new era with new toys.

If we're to make progress it's important to try, and do things differently.

It's all propaganda. There's no engineering shortage. They're all just trying to flood the market with more engineers from all around the world.

It's all propaganda plastered with a nice marmalade of feel goody "let's help the immigrants", or "everything great about our country came from immigrants", or other such variants of rhetoric. It's actually very smart, because it plays to the tune that people dance to.

That said immigration policies do need to change, and immigration is indeed a good thing for this country. Attracting talent is a lot of what makes this country great, but we need to be careful with the fine print of such policies as to not destroy our own economy.

This idea is absurd which I believe arises from a certain type of perspective that humanity needs to go beyond. Humanity needs to be less caged in perception. Let me expound on a point of view that maybe different to what see.

To separate matter, and mind is a paradoxical argument, because they're both of the same thing. Going back to the old idea of the fallen tree, if there's no mind then matter does not exist, and if matter doesn't exist then mind can not arise.

To put in other terms, if there's nothing receiving the projection, then what is the projection projecting on? Projection, and reception are another way of looking at mind, and matter. Mind being reception, matter being projection.

So going by that logic, and assuming that we're all made of matter, we can say that matter itself is both projection, and reception. So if matter is both projection, and reception, then what does that mean? Are we all "just" matter? Yes. Exactly.

But the argument isn't whether or not we're made of matter. I think we all agree that we're made of matter. I think the argument is that we humans share a certain inexorable feeling of qualia that arises from being human. Yes that's it. It's that qualia that distinguishes us from the rest of everything, except...

The problem is that qualia arises from our material form. Of course assuming that everything is matter, and the idea of the eternal soul, or other such argument, is false. Then that means qualia itself is matter.

Ok. What the hell am I getting at?

Maybe matter is more complex, more interesting than we perceive. Maybe matter itself is "intelligent", and it's just another form distinct from human perception. hmmm... So am I saying that everything that is matter is "intelligent"? Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying, BUT there are different forms of material patterns that form different constructs intelligence.

Meaning that how we receive, or in what form we receive the projection determines our perspective. Right now it just so happens we humans have a POV of humans.

The thing is that due to our incredible ability to not just receive, but to also project what we receive onto different things gives us the power of empathy. The illusion that we can perceive from a different POV. That we can somehow distill our perspective, and project it onto another thing. It's worked quite well so far. Mathematics, language, science, etc. But once we try to see from another perspective that's unimaginably different then it all breaks down.

Let's try to look at the perspective of ant for instance. Well we can't, because if you think about it you can't think of non-thought. Think of non-thinking, is an oxymoron. An ant doesn't think, I mean I'm sure it thinks, but it has completely different sense organs, a completely different set of logical processes, it has a completely different structure, and a completely different perspective than humans. It's unimaginable, because we can only view it from our perspective, which in its renders the idea false. We can only view the world from our perspective. Yet we can't call the ant unintelligent, an ant is very intelligent.

What we see is just that, and what we see differently, is still just seeing. We can't stop seeing, and once we stop seeing, then we stop being human. A human being is just another form of seeing, ants another, computers yet another. Everything has intelligence, it's just not in a recognizable form. In a relatable form. We're all just a box of switches. A mesh of material patterns that filters through existence to produce being. Demeaning different forms of being as lesser is a very human centric perspective. See differently, from the top of the mount, and realize you'll only ever see like a human being.

I don't think he meant that in the literal sense, hence the quotes.

The brain's "programming language" refers more the to the idea of what makes the brain's biological structure work to produce human perception.

By that logic we'll have to throw out some of the most influential authors. People like Hemingway, David Foster Wallace, Fitzgerald, Mary Shelley, etc. etc. Their reflections on life wouldn't matter, and the study of what they've thought on life would be meaningless. Perhaps from your POV that's true, but I simply don't agree with that.

An author's personal life is not indicative of their wisdom, or perspective. After all this life is simply a variety of events that just happen, all of which can't be perfect, or just the way you want. Life is just the way it is, and you, as a human being, are molded around it. Cognitively that's how a human being works, we learn, and we grow. See it for what life is, and go with it. After a while you'll develop your own perspective from wherever you stand.

But that's just the way I see things...

Humans aren't unbiased. We have biases, hence why courts give the conflicting parties a chance to choose their juries, and dismiss them if there's conflict of interest.

Same thing applies here. It's valid to bring up his background, and considering his background I don't expect him to be unbiased in his assessment. I wouldn't even be surprised if he's actively working against Tesla.

Being wealthy isn't just about income, it's about what you can do with your income.

Why should we explore?

Is that the goal of life? Incessant scientific progress?

The problem isn't civilian casualties, it's our propensity for war.